News
SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 missions likely two back-to-back Starlink satellite launches
Hinted at by a launch photographer and confirmed by an article published on NASASpaceflight.com, it appears that SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 launch is at least a month away and will likely be the company’s first operational Starlink mission, deemed “Starlink 1”.
Barring a surprise mission in the interim, this means that SpaceX is going to have a gap of at least two months between customer launches, something the company has not experienced since mid-2015 – more than four years ago. As such, it’s an extremely happy coincidence that SpaceX may now have internal Starlink launches to fill lulls in its commercial launch manifest.
Like any production and services-focused company, SpaceX incurs operational costs whether or not its services are being used – employees, leases, supplier contracts, and more still need to be paid for, facilities still need upkeep, long-lead production can’t simply pause, and many other recurring costs can’t be avoided. In theory, supplementing commercial launches with internal launches thus limits SpaceX’s downtime and effectively increases overall capital efficiency.
Flatsat revolution
Enter Starlink, a colossal ~11,800-satellite broadband internet constellation nominally designed, manufactured, launched, and operated by SpaceX. On May 23rd, after approximately one week of delays, a twice-flown Falcon 9 booster lifted off for the third time in support of SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch, an unparalleled 60-satellite beta test known internally as “Starlink v0.9”.
Upsetting all expectations, SpaceX managed to fit en incredible 60 high-performance Starlink satellites into Falcon 9’s unchanged payload fairing – middle of the ground in terms of usable volume. Weighing anywhere from 16,000 kg to 18,500 kg (35,300-40,800 lb), SpaceX’s very first dedicated Starlink launch also crushed the company’s record for heaviest payload launched by several metric tons.
In a fascinating turn of events, SpaceX ultimately sided with a largely unprecedented form factor for its operational Starlink satellites, resulting in ultra-thin, rectangular spacecraft that can be stacked like cards and feature their own integrated locking and stacking mechanisms.
A paradigm shift
According to NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX’s first and second operational Starlink missions (Starlink 1 and 2) are scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) October 17th and November 4th, while a similarly trustworthy source puts Starlink 1’s launch date NET “late October”.
Given that Starlink v0.9 was effectively a massive flight test meant to tease out issues with the satellites’ designs, any new any satellites launched in the coming months will have almost certainly been manufactured, assembled, and prepared for flight in just a few months. Unfortunately, out of the 60 satellites launched in May 2019, 10 (16.5%) have been decommissioned for unknown reasons, although the remaining 50 (83.5%) have reached their final orbits and are believed to be in good health.
Put simply, a >15% failure rate is not acceptable for an operational constellation of thousands of satellites, meaning that SpaceX will likely continue to refine and improve its Starlink design before truly ramping up production and launch cadence. Unless the issues leading to multiple satellite failures were relatively simple or expected, the company’s next one (or two) Starlink launches could be closer to “v0.95” than the first fully operational missions. Time will tell.
For now, the fact alone that SpaceX reportedly plans to complete its 180th high-performance satellites barely nine months after beginning high-volume production is dumbfounding. Incredibly, building 180 satellites in 9 months is, by all means, a low-volume run relative to what SpaceX will need to achieve to launch its full Starlink constellation by late 2027. A production rate of 180 Starlink satellites per month is much closer to the necessary production and launch cadences needed for SpaceX’s deployment milestones.
Regardless, for the time being, it appears that odds are good that SpaceX will be able to make good on its promise of launching 2-6 Starlink missions in 2019. According to SpaceX, Starlink can begin offering serious commercial broadband services in regions of the northern US and southern Canada once 360 satellites are safely in orbit.
If SpaceX manages to launch two quasi-operational Starlink missions in the span of a month (Oct-Nov), that initial operations milestone could come just a few months into 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
